UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Bedi et al
Plaintiff: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant: Vickram Bedi and Datalink Computer Products, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2017cv01168
Filed: October 19, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office: Albany Office
County: Montgomery
Presiding Judge: David N. Hurd
Presiding Judge: Daniel J. Stewart
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1345
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 8, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 68 MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the Government's # 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that the Defendant's # 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment is DENIED; it is further ORDERED th at Defendant's APA counterclaim is DISMISSED. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for $340,987.43 in back wages, plus pre- and post- judgment interest; and the Government shall submit for consideration, on or before April 20, 2020, a proposed judgment that adequately sets forth any applicable interest calculations, and the date or dates which any such calculations should run. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 4/8/2020. (pjh, )
January 28, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 33 MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that defendants' # 27 MOTION to certify an interlocutory appeal is DENIED. It is futher ORDERED that Defendants' # 30 MOTION to stay proceedings pending appeal is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file and serve an answer to the complaint on or before February 11, 2019. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the associated motions and to issue a scheduling notification setting defendants' time to answer the complaint accordingly. Motions terminated: 27 MOTION for Leave to Appeal, 29 Letter Motion requesting Oral Argument of Defendant's pending motion to certify an interlocutory appeal and requesting permission for Defendants to file a reply subm, 30 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal, 32 Letter Motion requesting Permission to File a Reply in Further Support of Motion for a Stay. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 1/28/2019. (meb)
June 1, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 24 MEMORANDUM-DECISION & ORDER denying defts' 10 Motion to Dismiss; and defts shall file and serve an answer to the complaint on or before June 15, 2018. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 6/1/2018. (see)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Bedi et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Represented By: Mary E. Langan
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Vickram Bedi
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Datalink Computer Products, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?